Original vs. Remake: Which one actually holds up?

Look, it's true that... I've seen those movies... they're empty... but the ones I listed are actually great films. I guess you can't call them Oscar-winning films, because those aren't even made with that specific strategy; they're made to entertain an audience, which they definitely did, but they're still pretty high quality when you weigh everything up—the acting, the director, the screenplay, all that stuff.

The first remake that comes to mind is an absolute masterpiece—a remake of a classic by Sidney Lumet. It’s truly brilliant! 🙏

I haven't gotten around to watching that movie yet, but I definitely plan to, hopefully😉I actually just finished watching the remake of REC, Quarantine, on DVD recently... my overall take is that it was alright. The plot stays consistent, the acting is solid, so all in all, it was okay... what do you guys think about it?

This thread is basically like asking: "What's your go-to drink? a) water or b) beer" 😂🤣. It all depends on what I'm feeling at the moment 😁. But seriously though... when it comes to movies, it really just depends on the specific film. Most of the time the original is obviously better, but there are those rare cases where a remake actually manages to surprise you and turn out decent, so I can't quite decide how to vote here...

It’s a toss-up... even though remakes usually end up being total letdowns compared to the originals, you occasionally stumble upon a few exceptions...

For me, personally, I actually think the American version of *The Ring* is way better than the Japanese original.

The new War of the Worlds is actually superior to the original version👍

3:10 Honestly, the Yuma remake is hands down better than the original 🙂

gentlebadger88 said:3:10 Honestly, the Yuma remake is hands down better than the original 🙂

Look, I’ll give you that—the remake holds up better, sure. But that ending? Once they step out of the motel and that final showdown kicks off, it’s a total catastrophe. Just a complete disaster. The technical stuff is laughable; bullets are flying everywhere like it's some amateur paintball match. Then you have Russell just picking people off ten at a time, one by one, like it’s nothing. It loses all sense of tension.

Anyway, my pick for the best in this thread is going to be-->>

Tarzan < George of the Jungle

Sandra Campbell2 said:Look, I’ll give you that—the remake holds up better, sure. But that ending? Once they step out of the motel and that final showdown kicks off, it’s a total catastrophe. Just a complete disaster. The technical stuff is laughable; bullets are flying everywhere like it's some amateur paintball match. Then you have Russell just picking people off ten at a time, one by one, like it’s nothing. It loses all sense of tension.

Anyway, my pick for the best in this thread is going to be-->>

Tarzan < George of the Jungle

George of the Jungle isn't actually a Tarzan remake—it’s more of a parody based on the same comic books. Honestly, Tarzan himself deserves his own massive thread at this point since there have been so many different versions made... but yeah, I'm pretty much a fan of all of them 😁

briskhound2 said:George of the Jungle isn't actually a Tarzan remake—it’s more of a parody based on the same comic books. Honestly, Tarzan himself deserves his own massive thread at this point since there have been so many different versions made... but yeah, I'm pretty much a fan of all of them 😁

No shit Sherlock !! 😵😵

Sandra Campbell2 said:No shit Sherlock !! 😵😵

Elementary, my dear Watson.😉

Marcus Niespiel has been tapped to direct the Conan remake—the same guy behind projects like Pathfinder and the Friday the 13th remake. He did handle a decent version of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I’m still not buying it.

Cinema is absolutely flooded with "masterpieces," but honestly, I'm not a fan—especially when Americans rush to remake something from just yesterday simply because they can't be bothered to watch anything that isn't in English. If you're going to bother with a remake, at least try to compare the two versions first.

Here are two examples I checked out recently:

The Flight of the Phoenix .
The newer version actually has a tighter script, but the original cast is way better—you've got James Stewart, Hardy Krüger, Ernest Borgnine, and a bunch of others.

Ofelas (Norv) Pathfinder (USA)

That 1987 film from Norway is a total masterpiece, whereas the 2007 remake is maybe worth a single watch if you're really bored.

First off, I’ve gotta say this thread is absolutely killer—huge props for coming up with this idea! I can already tell I’m going to have a blast hanging out here. 👍👍

---

Alright, let's get this show on the road—first matchup:

The Last House on the Left (1972) vs. The Last House on the Left (2009)

Honestly, the original feels way too amateurish compared to the remake, which is just much more unsettling. You know how some newer horror flicks feel like they just dump fifty gallons of blood on the screen for shock value? Well, the remake avoids that trap and actually crushes the original by nailing the atmosphere instead.

*

Death Race 2000 (1975) vs. Death Race (2008)

I'm sticking with the original on this one because it's actually fun to watch, whereas the remake just felt kind of tedious to me.

*

Vanishing Point (1971) vs. Vanishing Point (1997)

The original takes the win for me since the remake is just weaker overall—it just doesn't hit the same way, you know?

I don't see the point in remaking an original movie. It just drags the legacy of the first one through the mud, especially if the reboot ends up being a dud.🤮The only time a remake makes sense is if you're trying to fix a total disaster from the past.

My bad... but this whole thread feels kind of pointless. We’ve already spent way too much time debating remakes versus the originals on these boards...

At the end of the day, it's all subjective anyway. Some people dig the remake, others stick to the original...

There is already an identical thread 🤷

Get lost.